vpFREE2 Forums

: Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 9 JUL 2013

The current discussion of Bob Dancer's consulting activities
is closed on vpFREE.

vpFREE Administrator

···

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "thelonelybuzzard" <thelonelybuzzard@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: : Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 9 JUL 2013

Perhaps a lawyer is a better comparison, Bob. I would be wary of a lawyer who
had both casinos and players as clients, especially if the lawyer specialized in
gaming. At any rate, such a lawyer would have to be extremely attentive to
conflict of interest issues. The lawyer could not advise both casino and player
clients on any issue when those groups had adversarial goals without disclosing
and getting both parties' consent.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:

MHS wrote:
In that case, he should stop trying to present himself as an advocate
for players. And the alternative is . . . . presenting himself as a
??? for the casinos.

I produce and sell information to players, casinos, manufacturers, and

governmental agencies. I have never presented myself as an advocate for players.
I do believe that players who take my classes and read the materials I produce
will have better gambling results than players who don't. If you believe
otherwise, don't read my stuff.

Some players have an "us against the casinos" view of the world and find it

easier to understand if I'm always on one side or the other. That's not the way
I operate. My view is that players and casinos both have to survive for this to
work. If casinos take all the money from players, then casinos will go broke
because there is nobody to support them. Likewise, if casinos lose too much
money to players (as a whole), the casinos go broke and then the players will
have nobody to win from.

There's a happy medium. Casinos can survive while offering decent games ---

that the best players can exploit. I do what I can to support this "view of the
world." If somebody else doesn't like it, so be it.

Would it bother you if a doctor or dentist had both players and casino

executives for patients? Or a grocer sold food to both groups? I don't see it as
a lot different than that to sell information to both groups.

Bob